Most underrated and overrated players in the world?

[Richard]

Ah, he moves it around a bit too Richard, something you must know having seen/read about him playing.

It depends what sort of wickets he's playing on - if they're seaming, he moves it around both ways, sometimes lots, sometimes only a little - the whole bag.
On non-seaming wickets he very, very rarely moves the ball enough to be dangerous.

 

[Son Of Coco]

A bad shot is a bad shot, regardless of what's gone before. If you've been fooled, fine, but like I say - I've never seen McGrath fool a batsman with the outswinger\inswinger tactic or similar.
Worrying about what has gone before is a bad attitude. Worrying about a slow scoring-rate is a bad attitude.

Then you've never watched cricket anywhere nearly as closely as you think you have, or your knowledge of bowling and it's strategies is non-existent.

Your example of outswinger, inswinger, outswinger, inswinger etc etc isn't likely to fool anyone as it's become a pattern. It doesn't have to follow this rule to be capable of fooling a batsman, You can bowl your stock ball for 5 overs and then do something a bit different - it's as simple as that.

If you can show me one batsman who, when constantly beaten or unable to time his shots, shrugs it off with complete disdain I'll show you a robot.

You seem to send a lot of time talking about what you think should happen instead of what does happen. I think you need to learn more about the basics before coming up with these radical ideas personally.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Exactly - but they do keep him out and score heavily off the attack as a whole.
They manage to score heavily when he's bowled at them, despite the fact that they hardly ever manage to score quickly off him.
So therefore they aren't feeling pressurised by the fact that he's bowling at them.

On how many occasions have Australia been 'heavily' scored against when he's been bowling? I'd be willing to be it's not a large percentage of games played. Of course you'd have to define 'heavily'.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I do - the fact that I've watched him take wickets and read descriptions of wickets he's got when I haven't been able to watch.
There's no statistic you can use to remove luck from a bowler - because it's totally impossible to get rid of every edged run, every missed bad delivery - all it's possible to do is look at the wickets they have got and work-out whether they were from deliveries that deserved them.

But you can't, you just said it wasn't possible to use statistical research with bowling.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Depends on how many seaming or uneven wickets he played on before 2001 - all I can say is since 2001 he's played mostly on flat wickets and has rarely taken wickets with good deliveries.

You can say that yes, but it doesn't make it true. You've offered us no evidence that it has any semblance of 'fact' about it.

 

[Richard]

Richard, there's not a pitch in the world that won't move at all if you continuously land it on the seam. On a wicket that isn't doing much, moving it a few times a day is enough to be 'dangerously often'.

Combined with his accuracy the extra bounce McGrath gets does make him more dangerous because he can pitch it up a bit further and still get it short of a length, making it harder for a batsman to judge whether he should be playing at it or not. More bounce doesn't mean pitching it shorter - which is probably why you don't see the top-edged hooks and cuts you're talking about, he's not pitching it short enough, in general, for the batsman to be considering those shots in the first place.

Ridiculously uneven bounce is the wicket's fault - yes, but getting one to bounce a little extra every so often can also be a product of landing the ball on the seam. If you do this often enough (and it's something McGrath does with metronomic regularity) then something will happen. When you get the seam as upright as these guys again you'll get results.

I thought you were a bowler mate, but it seems as though you know very little about bowling - I'd like to say it surprises me, but as I said...we've talked before.

I'm not really a bowler who benefits from uneven bounce or much seam - I'm too short and the balls don't have much seam on them. I'm almost entirely a swing bowler.
The only way "extra" bounce can come into anything is if a top-edged cross-bat stroke takes a wicket. Otherwise, please explain how the ball bouncing more than expected can take a wicket (unless it's caught short-leg - and catches at short-leg off seamers are so rare as to be almost non-existent)?
Moving the ball off the seam once in every 8 overs will NOT make a bowler dangerous, and that's all a pitch with no grass or grease on it offers, for any bowler, no matter how often they hit the seam. McGrath's seam-position is no better than plenty, you know - there are all sorts of bowlers who have seam-positions every bit as good as him.
To be dangerous the ball has to move off the seam maybe every over - which it will do on a green wicket if the seam is released well.
It also has to move more than a tiny bit - any good batsman can adjust to a tiny bit of movement - and of course if it's never moving more than a small amount it won't trouble anyone.
Even if it was true that McGrath could move the ball off the seam where others couldn't - it still doesn't change the fact that almost all his wickets on flat pitches have come through poor strokes.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It depends what sort of wickets he's playing on - if they're seaming, he moves it around both ways, sometimes lots, sometimes only a little - the whole bag.
On non-seaming wickets he very, very rarely moves the ball enough to be dangerous.

And as I said before......any amount is enough to be dangerous especially on a wicket that is doing very little in general. On a wicket that is seaming there'll be a lot of balls that move too much to be any threat, on a wicket that offers less to the bowlers the one that moves becomes very dangerous indeed.

You don't have to move the ball a long way for it to be dangerous, about half a bat will do it (if that).

 

[Richard]

Well McGrath has superb career figures - means you're contradicting yourself.

No, it doesn't - because I've stated quite clearly that good figures don't neccesarily mean bowling well.
Not unusually, you've tried to manufacture a non-existant contradiction.

 

[Richard]

What about those that have played the game at that level?

How the hell do you work that out?

These people have experienced it, yet you still say they haven't...[/QUOTE]
Yes, because I know how easily time distorts things.
I also know I still haven't often heard people say "I felt terrific pressure here because bowler Y was keeping it tight".

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Depends on how many seaming or uneven wickets he played on before 2001 - all I can say is since 2001 he's played mostly on flat wickets and has rarely taken wickets with good deliveries.

So, in other words, every batsman in the world (which basically covers those who he has succeeded against since 2001) is poor, and can't handle a bowler who doesn't bowl good deliveries and can't move the ball off the seam?

And, every other bowler in the world (which basically covers those who have an inferior record in the period you named) is better than McGrath, just not as lucky?

 

[Richard]

so lets see them then, match reports of a few games that show that EVERY mcgrath wicket was from a non wicket taking delivery.

If you can be bothered, re-read the reports of Pak-Aus 2002\03 (3 Tests) and Ind-Aus 2004\05 (3 Tests - given that he got 0 wickets in 1 of them). You could also read them of WI-Aus (2003\04 - 1 Test)

 

[Son Of Coco]

I'm not really a bowler who benefits from uneven bounce or much seam - I'm too short and the balls don't have much seam on them. I'm almost entirely a swing bowler.
The only way "extra" bounce can come into anything is if a top-edged cross-bat stroke takes a wicket. Otherwise, please explain how the ball bouncing more than expected can take a wicket (unless it's caught short-leg - and catches at short-leg off seamers are so rare as to be almost non-existent)?
Moving the ball off the seam once in every 8 overs will NOT make a bowler dangerous, and that's all a pitch with no grass or grease on it offers, for any bowler, no matter how often they hit the seam. McGrath's seam-position is no better than plenty, you know - there are all sorts of bowlers who have seam-positions every bit as good as him.
To be dangerous the ball has to move off the seam maybe every over - which it will do on a green wicket if the seam is released well.
It also has to move more than a tiny bit - any good batsman can adjust to a tiny bit of movement - and of course if it's never moving more than a small amount it won't trouble anyone.
Even if it was true that McGrath could move the ball off the seam where others couldn't - it still doesn't change the fact that almost all his wickets on flat pitches have come through poor strokes.

Because a ball bouncing more than usual isn't necessarily short Richard!!! You seem to be assuming that if a ball bounces due to hitting the seam etc then it has also been pitched short enough for the batsman to have decided he was going to play a cross-bat shot or have to fend it away from his body. If the ball is pitched on a good length, the batsman won't be playing anything even faintly resembling a cross-bat shot. For argument's sake lets say McGrath pitches one in his usual area just outside off, the batsman goes forward, the ball bounces a little more and all of a sudden he's out of position for the shot he was attempting to play - THAT'S where extra bounce comes into it, not when playing a ball that is already short to start off with.

Once every 9 overs won't make a bowler dangerous no, but McGrath rarely moves one once every 64 balls I think you'll find. What makes him dangerous on flat tracks is not only movement gained when others struggle, but his unerring line - making a batsman play constantly at good length deliveries. I don't have data on this at the moment, but I'm willing to bet that a majority of McGrath's wickets have come from Bowled, LBW and caught in the region of the keeper and slips. Areas where movement and a good line are likely to see the most dismissals occur. Having watched him quite a bit, I can't recall too many occasions when McGrath's taken wickets being blasted around in front of square.

McGrath's seam position is very good, I'm sure there are others just as good as you say. What sets McGrath apart is his line - a constant nagging length that often has a batsman questioning whether to commit to the shot or not.

 

[Son Of Coco]

How the hell do you work that out?

These people have experienced it, yet you still say they haven't...

Yes, because I know how easily time distorts things.
I also know I still haven't often heard people say "I felt terrific pressure here because bowler Y was keeping it tight".[/QUOTE]

I've heard virtually every commentator here in Oz mention pressure being built at some stage, and given that they've all played cricket before I presume that they know what was going on and are speaking from personal experience in a similar situation.

 

[Neil Pickup]

McGrath ODIs
Wickets:
311

Runs Conceded:
6816

Best:
7/15

Average:
21.92

Legend
Bowled 76 (24.4%)
Caught 119 (38.3%)
Caught Behind 75 (24.1%)
LBW 40 (12.9%)
Stumped 1 (0.3%)
Hit Wicket 0 (0.0%)

McGrath Tests
Wickets:
481

Runs Conceded:
10309

Best:
8/24

Average:
21.43

Legend
Bowled 59 (12.3%)
Caught 196 (40.7%)
Caught Behind 132 (27.4%)
LBW 93 (19.3%)
Stumped 0 (0.0%)
Hit Wicket 1 (0.2%)

 

[Son Of Coco]

McGrath ODIs
Wickets:
311

Runs Conceded:
6816

Best:
7/15

Average:
21.92

Legend
Bowled 76 (24.4%)
Caught 119 (38.3%)
Caught Behind 75 (24.1%)
LBW 40 (12.9%)
Stumped 1 (0.3%)
Hit Wicket 0 (0.0%)

McGrath Tests
Wickets:
481

Runs Conceded:
10309

Best:
8/24

Average:
21.43

Legend
Bowled 59 (12.3%)
Caught 196 (40.7%)
Caught Behind 132 (27.4%)
LBW 93 (19.3%)
Stumped 0 (0.0%)
Hit Wicket 1 (0.2%)

Is there any way of finding out how many of the caught were between gully and first slip?

 

[Richard]

who the hell are you talking about? geoff allott has never had a series before or after the wc where he had an ER of below 4.40 let alone a whole period.

No, but AFTER WC99 his OVERALL economy-rate was precisely what I said it was.

and it did, because his career ER was complete rubbish. and please the same person who says that oram can only bowl on seamer friendly wickets in ODIs and is therefore useless now says that good figures are good figures, whether or not the pitch is seamer friendly

Noticed how I've reassesed Oram, given that I've realised it's frankly impossible (especially with you around) to think along those lines?

no the point is that you make him out to be this great player based on 1 series on seamer friendly pitches, no matter how rubbish he was before. and as ive explained the fact that his test record was poor too would suggest that he hadnt improved as a bowler, simply benefited from seamer friendly wickets. we can only look at his record and say that he was rubbish, 1 series on seamer friendly wickets proves nothing, let alone putting him down as one of the great players of the decade.

Which I didn't - I just said he contributed (very sparely - given he only played a handful of games) to a great decade for bowling.
I make it out on this single series because it forms such a large part of his career.

why would it have had? he never showed any improvement in tests even before the injury. and he never looked like taking wickets in tests, even while he was destroying sides in ODIs. no allott was rubbish period.

Which says one thing - he was bowling better in one form than the other.
And either could have changed - or it could have remained the same.
We'll never know.

and will you stop looking at 1 series on seamer friendly wickets to make him out as a great bowler? look at any other ODI series or any other test series instead.

No, I'll not look at Tests, it's very simple in Tests - he wasn't any good.
I'll keep looking at 1 series in ODIs, yes - because it forms such a large part of his career.

yes which is what ive done with allott, ive removed the part where he had any amount of success and looked at the rest of it. hes been rubbish for all the rest of it and the pattern continues in both form of the game. hence he was never going to amount to anything.

And the part you've removed forms a damn sight more than you seem to think.
You can't remove 1\3rd of someone's career.

the same people on here who you've claimed know nothing about cricket? on several occasions when ive asked you to take a poll of how many people agree with your opinion, you've said that what other people on here think is irrelevant. hence if other people think that any random idiot that you like knows quite a bit, is also irrelevant.

I've said it where, precisely?
I've said other people's ideas about what is fact is irrelevant (so if you've said "let's have a poll on whether Ealham bowled at the death" I've said that's pointless), but I've never disregarded other people's opinions, especially where they have access to stuff I don't - like watching Australian domestic cricket.

maybe you should have seen him bat since then. if you are so shallow to think that someone is useless against spin based on 2 games against rubbish spinners from 5 years agol then you are the idiot that you've made yourself out to be. id much rather use a performance against murali in SL and kumble on a sydney turner to judge a players prowess against spin, than use a performance against salisbury.

Are you ever going to get this right?
One, how the hell does it help you even if Brown, Swann and Salisbury were useless? It just means he was even worse if he struggled against them.
Two, it wasn't 5 years ago - there were TWO instances, THREE years apart, in which nothing had changed, in which he was clearly very uncomfortable against spin, in both 2000 and 2003. If I'd had the chance to watch him in 2003\04 I would have done - sadly I didn't. So the first chance I had to see that he'd improved against spin was the SCG Test. But I wasn't prepared to say someone had improved because of a single game, when he'd been poor against spin for a long time before that.
Now, however, I've seen enough evidence that he quite clearly has improved.

 

[Richard]

please how long ago did you say that only fools would consider a bowler like mcgrath who takes his wickets by luck a great bowler?
or are you gonna deny that you've ever said it, so that i find that comment and make you look like a fool again?

Again, interesting, you really do like manufacturing making me "look like a fool" don't you?
I don't know how long ago it was, or even if that's exactly what I said - ain't like it's unlike you to twist my words - but yes, only a fool would consider a bowler who's been so poor in 2001-2005 a great bowler.

 

[Richard]

and you are a fool if you think that pressure is all about restricting the scoring rate.
ive said it a million times, pressure is about creating chances, playing and missing and just creating doubt in the batsman's mind. like it or not the only reason bicknell got that wicket from an inswinger was because of pressure, the same reason why mcgrath gets about half his wickets.
and its fairly obvious, no matter how stupid you are, that you play a shot against a ball if you're not sure what its going to do. not just let it go and hope that it is an outswinger. and you can often tell from the angle and seam position as to what the ball is going to do.

So you can see the seam from where the batsman's standing, now?
Sometimes even the non-striker can't tell.
If you really can't differentiate between pressure and trickery you are one of your fools.

 

[Richard]

further evidence that you dont watch cricket. there is absolutely no wicket that doesnt offer any seam movement. every wicket offers something, and the fact is that with mcgraths accuracy, that little seam movement is more than enough to get the outside or inside edge.

So why does it happen so rarely then?
Yes, every wicket offers a tiny bit of movement, but not enough to make a bowler dangerous just by landing the ball on the seam.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Again, interesting, you really do like manufacturing making me "look like a fool" don't you?
I don't know how long ago it was, or even if that's exactly what I said - ain't like it's unlike you to twist my words - but yes, only a fool would consider a bowler who's been so poor in 2001-2005 a great bowler.

To 2005? So he's been poor since coming back from injury? A lot of countries would trade in their top two picks for a bowler as poor as McGrath I'd wager.

To be that poor and still have the average he has is also phenomenal - but then I have to stop myself as I've just realised that he's poor by your standards which are a little off kilter.